The following is an excerpt of an article on Yawning Bread

Alex Au/

I was speaking at an event organised by Maruah about the upcoming presidential election. Law professor Kevin Tan was the first speaker, giving a detailed run-down of the relevant constitutional provisions. This helped to clarify something that few Singaporeans, in the past, had much reason to pay attention to — what exactly the constitution says about the powers of the president.

Partly because of unfamiliarity with the role of the head of state, since our presidents have generally been like puppets on a string, many Singaporeans initially approached this election as a replay of the general election, bringing up issues such as housing, transport, the income gap and the influx of foreigners. Law minister K Shanmugam, in the last month or so, had to sternly tell Singaporeans that the president had no power at all — he was mostly to be a figurehead — except in a few areas where the constitution said he could act in his own discretion. Shanmugam’s attempt to shut Singaporeans up didn’t work as well as he might have hoped; expressions of bread-and-butter frustrations continue.

The mainstream media, taking the cue from the government, has mostly framed their reporting in the same way, but instead of saying that Singaporeans didn’t understand what the presidency was about, put a twist on it:  saying that certain candidates didn’t understand. The slant was that these candidates were “over-promising” and that they will surely fail to deliver and disappoint their supporters. There is also an unspoken slur that these candidates are out to break the law, raising the bogeyman of “confrontational politics”. Sotto Voce: These are bad candidates and you shouldn’t vote for them.

A reporter called me Sunday and asked me questions along those lines again. The thrust of the questions was to try to get me to agree that certain candidates were over-promising, and that they were unrealistic — from which it would be a short hop to saying they were delusional or confrontational. I resisted, reiterating what I said at the Maruah forum.

To which we will now come back. . .

Read the full article here.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

日做18小时午夜要照顾女婴 印尼女佣掐死女婴判误杀罪监七年

每日几乎做18小时,午夜还得照顾一岁女婴,一名印尼籍女佣,在两年前为阻止雇主女婴哭闹,一时恼火掐死女婴,被高庭判误杀罪,坐牢七年。 据昨日《联合早报》报导,称名案发生于2016年5月8日凌晨2时,在四美第225座组屋某单位,被告当时在该单位为一户张姓人家打工,死者是年仅一岁的女婴张妍嘉(洋名Richelle)。 24岁的被告自2015年1月起到张家打工,除了做家务,也负责照顾张家一对儿女,分别是三岁大男童及当时刚出生的女婴。 曾申诉工作辛苦、禁用手机,三次要求换雇主 开始工作约四个月后,被告就向中介要求换雇主,或把她送回印尼,前后要求了三次。被告称工作辛苦,整天被女雇主骂和被嫌弃做得不好。 女雇主也不准被告使用手机,被告两次偷偷找人帮忙买手机,结果两次都被女雇主发现并没收。 案发前一个月,女佣第三次要求离职,女雇主原本答应,但考虑到家婆无法照顾孩子后改变主意。 每天清洗一次壁橱 同一期间,女佣的工作量也增加,单是清洗壁橱就从每周一次改成每天一次。 案发当晚午夜时分,被告忙完一堆家务后开始入睡,和女婴在同一张床上就寝。不久后,女婴摔下床嚎啕大哭,被告抱起女婴安抚了一会儿就继续睡觉。 凌晨2时,女婴的哭声把被告吵醒,她起身喂奶,但女婴吐奶还越哭越大声。疲惫被告越发生气,她用力揍女婴的脖子尝试阻止她哭,同时把对女雇主的不满发泄在女婴身上。 但女婴仍不停哭泣,恼火的被告于是用左手抓住女婴脖子,右手猛压在脖子左侧,直至半小时后,女婴双眼紧闭,不再出声,被告才松手回去睡觉。…

Silvia Lim & Pritam Singh @ Houngang BE Press Conf

TOC Photo